Overview of Recruiting

#1
O

orangeblood

Junior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
1,061
Likes
32
#1
I assume we will sign 30 this year with 2 back counted and 3 sign and place. Here is what I have.

Sign & Place- Broussard, Meline, Ralph Williams

Ath- Delvin Jones. Unsure whether DE or TE yet
DE- Smith, Miller
DT-Brown, Willis, Harris, Copeland
LB- Taylor, Irvin (based on RTN thread)

WR-Cobbs, Ambles, Milton
OL- Fulton, Jose, Pair
QB- Bray
RB- Fugate
ST-Palardy

As I see it, we then have 9 spots left- 1 for either Simms or Newton, 3-4 O-line guys (out of Cullen, James, Green, Leifheit, etc), 1 RB which I think might be Lattimore, Clements or someone down the list, 1 more LB of Christian Jones, Shirley, Swilling, or Travis Williams, and then 2-3 "best available," out of safeties or WRs maybe Keenan Allen, Kyle Prater, Demetrius Wright, or Dietrich Riley

Any thoughts?
 
#5
#5
orangeblood said:
I assume we will sign 30 this year with 2 back counted and 3 sign and place. Here is what I have.

Sign & Place- Broussard, Meline, Ralph Williams

Ath- Delvin Jones. Unsure whether DE or TE yet
DE- Smith, Miller
DT-Brown, Willis, Harris, Copeland
LB- Taylor, Irvin (based on RTN thread)

WR-Cobbs, Ambles, Milton
OL- Fulton, Jose, Pair
QB- Bray
RB- Fugate
ST-Palardy

As I see it, we then have 9 spots left- 1 for either Simms or Newton, 3-4 O-line guys (out of Cullen, James, Green, Leifheit, etc), 1 RB which I think might be Lattimore, Clements or someone down the list, 1 more LB of Christian Jones, Shirley, Swilling, or Travis Williams, and then 2-3 "best available," out of safeties or WRs maybe Keenan Allen, Kyle Prater, Demetrius Wright, or Dietrich Riley

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

delvin jones might leave. irvin is gone(which is huge mistake by our staff). otherwise it was all good until that last paragraph where you named some ridiculous names and missed big ones.

For instance no keenan allen, you really think prater will switch?, none of the linebackers most likely, simms?, lattimore? maybe bernard. riley was one of the only plausible names besides the ol.

You did not mention luc, elam, dale trimble, c. bryant, c. riggs, ladarious owens, gio bernard or m dwyer, v sanders, the list goes on...
 
#6
#6
vol_in_ga said:
delvin jones might leave. irvin is gone(which is huge mistake by our staff). otherwise it was all good until that last paragraph where you named some ridiculous names and missed big ones.

For instance no keenan allen, you really think prater will switch?, none of the linebackers most likely, simms?, lattimore? maybe bernard. riley was one of the only plausible names besides the ol.

You did not mention luc, elam, dale trimble, c. bryant, c. riggs, ladarious owens, gio bernard or m dwyer, v sanders, the list goes on...
Click to expand...

I should have put Luc, Sanders, and Moses in the last paragraph. The staff is working again on Irvin. Prater has basically decommited from USC. Elam reaffirmed his Florida commitment this week. I think Lattimore is more "getable" than Dyer because of the FSU situation and the fact that Dyer has told some people he is going to Auburn. I would be surprised if we get Owens away from Auburn. I do not think we will take Riggs because of his size and I think Trimble and Bernard are too far down the list to take unless we have several decommitments.
 
#7
#7
orangeblood said:
I should have put Luc, Sanders, and Moses in the last paragraph. The staff is working again on Irvin. Prater has basically decommited from USC. Elam reaffirmed his Florida commitment this week. I think Lattimore is more "getable" than Dyer because of the FSU situation and the fact that Dyer has told some people he is going to Auburn. I would be surprised if we get Owens away from Auburn. I do not think we will take Riggs because of his size and I think Trimble and Bernard are too far down the list to take unless we have several decommitments.
Click to expand...

the elam situation is fishy so i say we are still in it regargless of those comments. time will tell.

Prater decommit? dont think so. sources?

lattimore has to have interest first before he can be more "getable"

owens visited last week, is tight with coach thompson, and will be back for another visit he said.

riggs delayed his commit date so that lane could sit down with his momma. he also said we became major players after his visit.
 
#8
#8
We will not sign 30 players. Too much of a number crunch in 2011 if we do. We will sign around 26.
 
#9
#9
i dont think we will sign more or less than the 28 we are allowed.
 
#10
#10
If this keeps up we will sign 4-7 (3* OL) just to be able to take the field. The product on the field is not a Great recruiting tool.
 
#12
#12
Wouldn't the 28 SEC limit apply here or does the two that will be "back counted" eliminate that problem? I'm not a recruiting guru but I am curious as to this question.
 
#13
#13
Lord Vader said:
If we sign 30 guys, we will be lucky to get 25 of them in. There won't be a numbers crunch...
Click to expand...

We can't sign 30 guys, only 28. If I have read it right, 28 is the limit even with the backcounting. Besides, the coaching staff is too smart to set themselves up by signing too many and some getting into school that were questionable at the time. We won't sign anything over 26, IMO.
 
#14
#14
3L with debt said:
Wouldn't the 28 SEC limit apply here or does the two that will be "back counted" eliminate that problem? I'm not a recruiting guru but I am curious as to this question.
Click to expand...

Yes, it applies here, but 2 of them can be backcounted on '09 which leaves the full 28 for '10. 30 total players...
 
#15
#15
g8terh8ter_eric said:
We can't sign 30 guys, only 28. If I have read it right, 28 is the limit even with the backcounting. Besides, the coaching staff is too smart to set themselves up by signing too many and some getting into school that were questionable at the time. We won't sign anything over 26, IMO.
Click to expand...

Ok, that answers my question.
 
#16
#16
g8terh8ter_eric said:
We can't sign 30 guys, only 28. If I have read it right, 28 is the limit even with the backcounting. Besides, the coaching staff is too smart to set themselves up by signing too many and some getting into school that were questionable at the time. We won't sign anything over 26, IMO.
Click to expand...

I dunno how you keep getting confused about this. We can sign 30. I can't imagine a scenario where we only sign 26...
 
#17
#17
3L with debt said:
Wouldn't the 28 SEC limit apply here or does the two that will be "back counted" eliminate that problem? I'm not a recruiting guru but I am curious as to this question.
Click to expand...

Everything I have read is that the 28 rule is non-negotiable. If you can only get 25 in at a time each class, then signing 28 with the hopes of counting back 3 only makes sense if you look at it like that. We can't sign 30 and count back 2 and get 25 in school. That's the way I look at it.
 
#19
#19
Lord Vader said:
I dunno how you keep getting confused about this. We can sign 30. I can't imagine a scenario where we only sign 26...
Click to expand...

We can only get 27 in school total, and that's back counting 2. 2 back counted to last class + 25 for the 2010 class = 27. We won't and can't sign 30. The coaches aren't going to go Houston Nutt on this. That is another reason you are seeing defections and some reconsidering because we have more kids wanting to get in than we have spots.
 
#20
#20
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Everything I have read is that the 28 rule is non-negotiable. If you can only get 25 in at a time each class, then signing 28 with the hopes of counting back 3 only makes sense if you look at it like that. We can't sign 30 and count back 2 and get 25 in school. That's the way I look at it.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what you are trying to say here. Hubbs, LWS, everybody is in agreement the limit is 30. We have room to backcount 2 on the '09 class. Then sign a full class of 28 for '10. We can only get 25 of those 28 into school, so 3 of them will be placed...
 
#21
#21
g8terh8ter_eric said:
We can only get 27 in school total, and that's back counting 2. 2 back counted to last class + 25 for the 2010 class = 27. We won't and can't sign 30. The coaches aren't going to go Houston Nutt on this. That is another reason you are seeing defections and some reconsidering because we have more kids wanting to get in than we have spots.
Click to expand...

Your first 2 sentences are correct. The 3rd sentence is not. We CAN sign 30. They can't go Houston Nutt anymore because you can't sign more than 28 for one class. That is why the rule was put in place...
 
#22
#22
Lord Vader said:
I don't even know what you are trying to say here. Hubbs, LWS, everybody is in agreement the limit is 30. We have room to backcount 2 on the '09 class. Then sign a full class of 28 for '10. We can only get 25 of those 28 into school, so 3 of them will be placed...
Click to expand...

This is what Hubbs said....

He said that UT can only get a total of 27 prospects into school by back counting 2 to 2009 and getting the max 25 into school for 2010. He said that "technically" they could sign 30, but that's with 2 back counting and 3 going to JUCO or Prep.

That's what he said, he never said they WOULD sign 30 because they can't get all of them into school. The only number we need to be worried about is WHO and HOW MANY we can get into school. So, 30 isn't the number, 27 is.
 
#23
#23
Lord Vader said:
Your first 2 sentences are correct. The 3rd sentence is not. We CAN sign 30. They can't go Houston Nutt anymore because you can't sign more than 28 for one class. That is why the rule was put in place...
Click to expand...

I know why it was put in place, but I used it as an example that this coaching staff isn't going to take prospects they can't get in. We just won't do that. We are moving in the direction of smaller and better classes to make number efficient. That's what O and Lane did at USC.
 
#24
#24
g8terh8ter_eric said:
This is what Hubbs said....

He said that UT can only get a total of 27 prospects into school by back counting 2 to 2009 and getting the max 25 into school for 2010. He said that "technically" they could sign 30, but that's with 2 back counting and 3 going to JUCO or Prep.

That's what he said, he never said they WOULD sign 30 because they can't get all of them into school. The only number we need to be worried about is WHO and HOW MANY we can get into school. So, 30 isn't the number, 27 is.
Click to expand...

So you think we are only going to sign 27 players? If we only sign 27 players, we will get in 23 or 24. I don't see that happening, we need to take as many as we can...
 
#25
#25
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I know why it was put in place, but I used it as an example that this coaching staff isn't going to take prospects they can't get in. We just won't do that. We are moving in the direction of smaller and better classes to make number efficient. That's what O and Lane did at USC.
Click to expand...

Dude, we already have 20 commitments. We have to get 3 or 4 more OL, a RB, a DL, a QB, a WR, a DB or 2, 2 LBs, and maybe a TE. I don't see us signing below our limit of 30. If we do it will be close...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top